Re: Playtest Characters (long)

From: TTrotsky_at_aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:43:05 EDT


Hooray for Michael Schwartz, giving us something more concrete to comment on! I'll try to restict my observations and questions to matters impinging on the rules rather than more abstruse questions of playing style and utility which have nothing to do with HW per se ;-)

     Please don't feel an overwhelming need to respond to every single point I make (unless by private mail, if you like). General answers and a few specifics should suffice.

GENERAL COMMENTS
1) The characters seem to be rather more powerful than would have been created using the the keyword + four abilities method, and private divinations seem to support this contention. It seems obvious, IMO, that if this is the case one or other method needs tweaking to bring it into line with the other. Not exactly arduous, one would expect :-)
2) All the keywords here are equivalent to RQ 'rune levels'. Are there
'initiate' level ones (or whatever the new term is) or are they not needed
because you can just take the rune level version and reduce the skill levels from 8/12 to 10/10 or whatever?
3) I'm guessing that some abilities are 6/14 because the keyword description says so, right?
4) I am very pleased to see that Yinkin has been added as a cult, and that Mastakos looks more interesting that he does in RQ3. This is the sort of thing I expect HW to do really well, and frankly, it makes me prepared to forgive a lot of other stuff if I have to ;-)  

DESCRIPTIONS
      Funnily enough, and no doubt reflecting poorly on my intelligence, I hadn't actually stopped to consider just how long 100 words was when I thought about the pros and cons of the text-based system (on which I don't wish to dwell at this time). Having seen some examples, my immediate response is: blimey, that's really *short*!

      I have played, both as GM and player, in games where players present text-based character write-ups and the GM translates them into a fullynegotiable  character sheet (from which I hope it can be seen that I don't object to text-based write-ups per se). Looking back at the ones I have produced as a player, I discover that all are in the 400-700 word range - although I did manage to find one I'd edited down to 170 by omitting large chunks of relevant information. If I were a HW player, I guess I'd have to do a 'normal' text-based write up and then try and edit it down to the 100 word limit, a task I'm never very keen on or adept at. In all fairness, this is my problem, not the game's, and I can always use the alternate system - so long as I'm not penalised for doing so.

Mental/Physical ABILITIES

  1. On the whole, these look good, but some are a little puzzling. What is the difference in rules terms between:

good memory and wise
tenacious and determined
cunning, resourceful and quick-thinking
agility, fleet-footed and nimble ?

2) And when on Earth would you make rolls against the following, and what would be the results of success/failure?

hospitable, tenacious, determined, impartial, belligerent, ruthless (although I guess these could be used like Pendragon personality traits) cunning, quick-thinking, resourceful, unpredictable, wise, grim, tactiturn, driven

3) I note that some characters have 'Close Combat', while others have
'Quarterstaff Combat' or 'Swordsmanship'. While the former seems a little too
all-purpose for my tastes, would I at least be right in assuming that its restricted to members of warrior cults? If not, what would prevent anybody from writing 'skilled in all weapons' on their character write-up?

SKILLS/EXOTIC ABILITIES
1) 'Speak many languages' seems a bit vague. Shouldn't you have to specify which ones? If not, isn't a bit easy, upon coming on a language you haven't encountered before, to say 'well, gosh, I happen to speak that one' (possibly after a roll)?
2) 'Cheat death' also seems alarmingly general. Is it just some sort of general luck ability (which I wouldn't mind so long as it wasn't too high)? 3) If they are rune level (or equivalent in the new system), how come only one has 'lead [deity's] worship? Shouldn't they all have it? The same goes for
'give spiritual advice'.

MAGIC
     On the whole, interesting. Would I be right in assuming that 'Combat magic' refers to a range of magics, such as weapon-improvement, armourimprovement,  rapid strikes, etc.? I appreciate that the old Bladesharp, Bludgeon etc. are gone, and this makes some sense, but there should definately be a distinction between, frex, Bladesharp/Bludgeon/etc., Protection, Fanaticism and Multimissile (to use old RQ terms) IMO. Of course, it might be that this will only come when the cultural and cult details are added into the magics, which seemingly is still being done (judging from Kevin Rose's post).

GOALS & FLAWS
     OK by me. I notice everyone has a goal, is this compulsory or just these characters? Does the goal have any game effect? If the answer to both of these is 'no', why would you use up your valuable 100 words defining one?

SUPPORTING CAST
     I assume the initial ability level refers to their chance of being able to help out or oppose the character under the relevant circumstances. The second one obviously applies to all skills relevant to their specific profession. What, exactly does 'other concept' do - just refer to other skills the GM may wish to decide the supporting character has from time to time?      

Forward the glorious Red Army!

     Trotsky


Powered by hypermail